Re: Proto-Tsimshian

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "C. Darwin Goranson"
<cdog_squirrel@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Cardoso" <entrelenga@>
> wrote:
> >
> > I am not sure if this has been discussed here before (or if it is
> > on-topic), but I would like to know of the validity of this theory:
> >
> > Proto-Tsimshian: A New World Indo-European Language, by John A.
> Dunn (2001)
> > http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/D/John.A.Dunn-1/text/p1.htm
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Clayton
> >
>
> I'm still in 2nd year undergrad, but I've done a bit of studying on
> Proto-Indo-European and have looked into Eurasiatic and Nostratic and
> such.
>
> I wouldn't dismiss the idea completely. However, if the personal
> pronouns are different and the number system is too, at best we're
> dealing with an IE substrate.

Number systems can be replaced.

> I won't deny that it looks suspicious, but either way, it proves a
> point. If it turns out not to be IE at all, then it's more evidence
> to suggest that mere word similarities, even on proto-levels, aren't
> necessarily enough to prove connections.

Most of the words have meanings that don't keep their words well. On
the basis of the evidence, I would say that Tsimshian was not
Indo-European.

Richard.